CLM

History should be remembered. If someone wants to dress up and remember history, so be it.

I remember going to living history museums as a kid. There was one out west that had a mountain man. There was one in the smokies that has pioneers. There was one in a plain state that had different pioneers. I got a kick out of all of them. I probably learned as much from the play actors as the books.

I dislike the tone and language of the article. Because the author is tired of the civil war, he is detracting reenactors? I don't really understand his overall point here. Reenactors are doing the leg work of teaching the average American about the civil war. I am fresh out of school (kind of) and I can tell you that students learn nothing from class. Going to reenactments and talking to the guys is how people learn. Some of what the author said is just plain incorrect. I've been reenacting for about 13 years in 2 states with probably 5 different units, confederate and union, and there have never been lotteries or any pre-planning of "who dies first" or when or how. I've also never heard a reenacter try to correct someone by saying they are a "living historian". I've heard people use that term before, but no reenactor I have ever met would be against being called a "reenactor". Also I dont know what spectators have "paid a hefty fee" to gain entry, but every reenactment I've been to has been on public land.

I also dislike how the author brings up slavery. Maybe he forgets that free blacks serving in the confederate army were paid the same as whites, and that blacks in the union army were paid 1/3 the salary of whites and that the famous "buffalo soldiers" weren't paid at all. Or that the north had slavery until the 13th amendment AFTER the war was over.

Like most authors about most things, this guy needs to get his facts straight. Also he should appreciate the efforts of those who share his passion for history and who put their time and effort into this hobby, which includes educating people. This guy gets paid to talk to scholars about things they probably already know on some level. Reenactors are volunteers who take time and money away from their lives to talk to average joe blow from the street about the Civil War.

I dislike the tone and language of the article. Because the author is tired of the civil war, he is detracting reenactors? I don't really understand his overall point here. Reenactors are doing the leg work of teaching the average American about the civil war. I am fresh out of school (kind of) and I can tell you that students learn nothing from class. Going to reenactments and talking to the guys is how people learn. Some of what the author said is just plain incorrect. I've been reenacting for about 13 years in 2 states with probably 5 different units, confederate and union, and there have never been lotteries or any pre-planning of "who dies first" or when or how. I've also never heard a reenacter try to correct someone by saying they are a "living historian". I've heard people use that term before, but no reenactor I have ever met would be against being called a "reenactor". Also I dont know what spectators have "paid a hefty fee" to gain entry, but every reenactment I've been to has been on public land.

I also dislike how the author brings up slavery. Maybe he forgets that free blacks serving in the confederate army were paid the same as whites, and that blacks in the union army were paid 1/3 the salary of whites and that the famous "buffalo soldiers" weren't paid at all. Or that the north had slavery until the 13th amendment AFTER the war was over.

Like most authors about most things, this guy needs to get his facts straight. Also he should appreciate the efforts of those who share his passion for history and who put their time and effort into this hobby, which includes educating people. This guy gets paid to talk to scholars about things they probably already know on some level. Reenactors are volunteers who take time and money away from their lives to talk to average joe blow from the street about the Civil War.

This article is an opinionated joke.

Click to expand...

Outstanding post!

The author of that article is, like most professional journalists, ill informed (at BEST) about what he wrote about.

In fact, the "living historians" at Charleston fudged the history more than a little by firing their first shot at the fort at 6:45 in the morning rather than at the very famous historical time of 4:30 a.m.

Click to expand...

Then, when the mortar shot was finally fired to begin the reenactment, it barely sailed up 40 yards or so into the sky, although the noise it made was, according to the Charleston Post and Courier, "thunderous." But the newspaper also reported that the pyrotechnics left something to be desired: Rather than the "star shell" of a century and a half ago, the explosion seemed more like a "bottle rocket." The fireworks technician in charge of the mortar shot explained that the burst was "intentionally weak, as a safety precaution to the crowds of people on hand to witness the waterfront ceremony." So much for historical accuracy.

Click to expand...

I read the link until I came across the above two quoted areas. Then I laughed at the author and closed the tab.

Does this guy honestly think the re enactments should start at 4:30am just because the battle did? How many people do you think would be there to see it? I doubt many were there at 6:45am either.

Apparently they should also use full power realistic explosions according to the author.

ABOUT

Glock Talk is the #1 site to discuss the world’s most popular pistol, chat about firearms, accessories and more. As our membership continues to grow we look forward to reading your stories and learning from your experiences. Membership is free and we welcome all types of shooters, whether you're a novice or a pro. Come for the info, stay and make some friends.